Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
OrderMagic v. Chop’t Creative Salad | Patent Lawsuit 1:26-cv-01773

OrderMagic LLC v. Chop’t Creative Salad Company LLC

1:26-cv-01773 S.D.N.Y. Closed US7831475B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 4 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and closed 27 May 2026, with US7831475B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US7831475B2
Application no.
US11/757998
Case no.
1:26-cv-01773
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
S.D.N.Y.
Court level
District Court
Case region
New York
Chief judge
Jennifer L. Rochon
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
4 Mar 2026 – 27 May 2026
Duration
84 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed without Prejudice
Products & marks
Remote ordering system
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:26-cv-01773, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US7831475B2 Active App. US11/757998

Remote ordering system

A remote ordering system is provided using an electronic menu having a series of input devices corresponding to various menu items aligned with the input devices, and a wireless transmitter to send selected menu items to a receiving device for processing. A display to show selected menu items, an alpha-numeric keyboard, a non-cash payment device, and a printer for receipts are also contemplated for increased functionality.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
9 Nov 2010
Earliest priority
29 Nov 2006
Est. expiry
12 Jun 2028
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06Q20/00
Prosecution counsel
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
Examiner
FRENEL, VANEL
US7831475B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Isaac RabicoffOrderMagic LLCPlaintiff
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“The Court having been advised at Dkt. 16 that all claims asserted herein have been settled in principle, ORDERS that the above-entitled action be DISMISSED and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated. To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed by June 26, 2026; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. If the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they must submit the settlement agreement to the Court by the deadline to reopen to be “so ordered” by the Court. Per Paragraph 4(C) of the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases, unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record.”

Case 1:26-cv-01773 · S.D.N.Y. · closed 27 May 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:26-cv-01773?

1:26-cv-01773 is a patent infringement action brought by OrderMagic LLC against Chop’t Creative Salad Company LLC, filed on 4 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case closed on 27 May 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 1:26-cv-01773?

US7831475B2 (“Remote ordering system”), assigned to ORDERMAGIC LLC, currently active. The record also lists Remote ordering system.

How was case 1:26-cv-01773 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “The Court having been advised at Dkt. 16 that all claims asserted herein have been settled in principle, ORDERS that the above-entitled action be DISMISSED and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated. To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed by June 26, 2026; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. If the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they

What does dismissal without prejudice mean?

A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.

How long did case 1:26-cv-01773 take?

84 calendar days, from filing on 4 Mar 2026 to closure on 27 May 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:26-cv-01773?

Chief Judge Jennifer L. Rochon presided. Isaac Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff OrderMagic.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:26-cv-01773 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:26-cv-01773 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.